Why do some theists desperately try to claim a lack of faith as religion?

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Science, which studies the natural world, does not have the tools (nor will it have) to measure the supernatural world. God's existence can not be proven in a scientific manner.

An Atheist, someone who believes in no God, cannot prove his position either. His position is the same as the believer's, studying a supernatural question with only natural tools.

All we can do is consider the existing evidence and reach a conclusion based on it. Belief, not proof, is all there is here.




posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   
The scientific method has its limits within the limits of humanity. If something can not be proven using the scientific method than the only standard to believe is the unknown until which something is provable.

Science was once very strict before theoretical science came into play. Once that happened everything changes and people started to allow room for loopholes in the scientific method, patching together assumed explanations where no explanation is able to be proven. These assumptions, all to often, become refereed to as fact even though there is no such evidence proving it. Thus is where modern science has become inherently flawed. Theorems have become labeled as fact for no good reason besides being the "best explanation thus far".

To give a prime example:

Black holes. Humanity has never come in contact with a black hole. The best we have had is the ability to observe a few through high powered telescopes. However, there are countless assumed "facts" about black holes that scientists and textbooks alike like to label as truth simply because nothing better has come along. Thus we believe what quite possibly be a lie even though there is a lack of evidence against it, and there is also no evidence for it.

There are thousands, perhaps millions of "black holes" in science. In real science we have come to know the makeup of our atmosphere through constant research and microscopic testing and observation. The majority of people have never done this testing, they have never seen the makeup of air - but the science around it is solid. It fits and is proven by the scientific method time and time again and thus it can be labeled as a true fact.

Now we have the "black hole" of religion. Religion existed long before science. Science can not prove where religion came from in the beginning, but we can prove that it did indeed exist. Anything to the contrary is an assumption. Some people have faith in a religion simply because they are raised to believe in such. Other people have faith in a religion because they have felt the presence of a God an its influence on their lives and the world around them.

These people are labeled as crackpots by scientists. They can not be proven wrong or mentally unstable, they are simply concluded to be delusional based on the fact that most of these scientists have not experienced similar situations of spirituality. Worst of all, despite all of our technology and advances we can not prove that there is a God or is not one, which leaves it to the unknown. That is why both extremes venture into the realm of faith - the belief in anything that cannot (yet) be ultimately proven, or in some cases disproved.

Scientists can assume that anything that goes into a black who is immediately condensed and destroyed but do they actually know that. Has that idea been tested? No. Because it can't be. We don't have the ability to go into a black hole and even if we did, I doubt anyone would have the stones to do it based on the preconcieved ideas that science has already assumes.

Just the same with religion. We cannot go to the end of the universe and find out if there is a God or not. In fact, we can't go much farther outside of our own solar system. So who are we to assume, scientific method or not, anything that is out there past our vision and our scope of travel? We aren't anything. We are ants.

And anyone who believes in the assumptions are arrogant ants, no matter what side of the coin you sit on.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Its all about Belief.
Faith pretty much equals belief.
Belief without seeing.
Has never failed me until now, and really in todays highly atheistic world with so much killing, hate, rumors of war, and wars, evil leaders, droned/corrupt people....
Yeah.. back then many people were religious.. I don't think they had it this bad. And fyi wars over religion? Pfft thats bullsh*t, you know what they say. the ones who win the war get to write the history books.
Funny because most atheists claim to know more than religious people but time and again i see its exactly the opposite.
You rely on science, while provable its the devils game "aka" otherworldy knowledge. They weren't called fallen angels for nothing. And there are many more books to the bible, they're just removed from printed versions. Most of the removed ones explain alot in detail about aliens, some have talked about lost cities like atlantis, heck. egypt isn't full of sand for no reason. There's a ton of freaky out of this world stuff burried under all that sand. in any case, science cannot prove everything, after all it can't prove that the Almighty is real
. so maybe it's sciences that's flawed.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Yes. Science has, and will continue to unravel the mysteries of the universe. As a unintended bonus, with each mystery solved we erase the biblical gods from every corner of the universe. Time and time again science has proven that if something is knowable (provable), then we will know it.

The two main questions left is: Where did the universe come from, and how did life begin. Even if it takes a few million years we will figure it out.

edit on 3/30/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)


So you have faith in Science?
edit on 30-3-2013 by Orwells Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Science, which studies the natural world, does not have the tools (nor will it have) to measure the supernatural world. God's existence can not be proven in a scientific manner.

An Atheist, someone who believes in no God, cannot prove his position either. His position is the same as the believer's, studying a supernatural question with only natural tools.

All we can do is consider the existing evidence and reach a conclusion based on it. Belief, not proof, is all there is here.


An atheist is not someone who believes in no god. An atheist is someone who does not accept there is any tangible evidence for gods. It is not a belief, it is the absence of a willingness to accept faith as viable evidence for it/he/she/them (gods).

I am an atheist. There are many things I do not know. But based on the total lack of any evidence to the contrary, I feel comfortable with my lack of faith.
Others may find it disturbing.


With regard to theists that try to claim that I have a religion, I regard it more as a questioning of their own faith and an attempt to divert attention (usually their own) away from the massive "evidence hole" that pervades pretty much every deity based belief.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jiggerj
Even if it takes a few million years we will figure it out.



Hello again. I gotta say, Jiggerj, I've really grown to like you and a lot of the ideas that you express on this site. I'd like to think that, if we got a chance to sit down and share a few pints, we'd find that we have far more in commmon that we do differences. This, however, is a profound one in which we do.

What you have just expressed is a statement of faith. That is your proclamation of your own world view, at this point in your life. You believe, have faith, that mankind is fully capable of quantifying the entirety of this Universe, even if it takes millions of years. You have faith that, long after your time on this rock is over, our species will be able to fully understand the physical world around us and its origins. I disagree with you. It's my belief that science, as we know it, will never be able to prove nor disprove 'God'. And it's my belief that this is intentional.

Please link me to any sources you might have where these solved mysteries have erased the God of the Bible. As far as I'm concerned 'science' is a wonderful, but flawed, man made creation which helps us in our attempt understand this wonderful creation around us. I'm in awe at what mankind has been able to accomplish but you have far more faith in humans, in this regard, than I do.

We don't even fully understand the fundamental how and why of a single human cell and you want me to believe that we'll know and prove the origins of the Universe and the non-existance of God? I'm not buying.

We both have faith my friend, it's just a matter of who or what we believe.

edit on 30-3-2013 by slowisfast because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by slowisfast
 


I think the comment relates more to the observational exponential upward curve of scientific advancement and technological growth more than it does faith.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 

Whenever I hear someone say that atheism is not a religion, I just think 'You have not really searched this issue. Oh my, here comes the same load of memorized one-liners for me to hear for the 1,036th time."

1. When you say you do not 'believe in gods of any kind' - I really have no idea what you mean by 'god'. I don't believe in gods, but that does not mean that you have defined them for me.

2. You seem to insist that your belief system is supported by science, logic, rationality, critical thinking, skepticism, Webster's and all manner of acceptable recitation. This is simply not true. Not one iota of this has been addressed by the scientific method. Be ethically accurate with your contentions.

3. You cite in layered wording that everyone is stupid, if they do not immediately accept your definitions and rationale.

The simple fact is that the word god has no meaning outside churches which teach the concept so I have no idea what you mean by not believing a god. It has no meaning. Webster's 1880? Really, that is just begging for a pre-concocted argument authority. Old does not make right. You need to express these definitions in your own words or you do not really understand them. It is a very sophomoric definition of faith, and unreliable as a recitation - we know much more now about our realm than we knew in 1880. Finally, I do not believe in 'god' either, but I am NOT an atheist. I refuse to coerce people into believing as I suspect.

I will be the first to say that this Webster's definition is unmitigated crap. I know you said to not create new definitions, but these tendered in 1880 are incompetent. They are crafted like trying to describe a house by the boards and nails and pipes and shingles. I have no problem saying it as the person who foisted this in the 1880's most likely only saw their church, school, the university and the library and that was about it. Then they died, and we are left with the mess to clean up.

The New Ethical Definitions - Clue: They have nothing to do with the undefined word god!! Wow such a concept - base definitions on definable words! Wow.


Religion - The compulsory adherence to an idea around which testing for falsification is prohibited. - If you are shoving something down my throat and telling me I am stupid if I do not accept it, that science has proven your view - and I cannot approach that topic with the scientific method because it is unaddressable, blocked by SSkeptics, or is simply not even defined well enough to test (like the word 'god') - Then you are forcing a religion on me.

Faith - The personal choice to cherish an unproven construct as inspiring. As long as you are not pretending to do science, not pretending to represent the opinion of science, not shoving your belief down everyone else's throat, or telling them they are irrational, and you acknowledge ethically that it is indeed a faith, then you are fine. Enjoy.

I might even listen and enjoy too.


In other words: The moment you power push market atheism, it has become a religion.

edit on 30-3-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arolexion
Its all about Belief.
Faith pretty much equals belief.
Belief without seeing.
Has never failed me until now, and really in todays highly atheistic world with so much killing, hate, rumors of war, and wars, evil leaders, droned/corrupt people....
Yeah.. back then many people were religious.. I don't think they had it this bad. And fyi wars over religion? Pfft thats bullsh*t, you know what they say. the ones who win the war get to write the history books.
Funny because most atheists claim to know more than religious people but time and again i see its exactly the opposite.
You rely on science, while provable its the devils game "aka" otherworldy knowledge. They weren't called fallen angels for nothing. And there are many more books to the bible, they're just removed from printed versions. Most of the removed ones explain alot in detail about aliens, some have talked about lost cities like atlantis, heck. egypt isn't full of sand for no reason. There's a ton of freaky out of this world stuff burried under all that sand. in any case, science cannot prove everything, after all it can't prove that the Almighty is real
. so maybe it's sciences that's flawed.


Whoa! Hold on a second. Don't blame the plights of our modern world on Atheists. I would recon to say that most of the atrocities committed on this planet are actually committed by so-called religious people. I think I read that Atheists account for only about 13% of the worlds total population. You can't really blame the 13% for the worlds problems. Religion is just a tool for the PTB to control the weak minded.

Sorry, I don't believe in fairytale books or saviors or anything else make belief. I believe in the physical universe and all things provable. To do otherwise is just foolish.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 



Why do some theists desperately try to claim a lack of faith as religion?


I wouldn't say lack of faith is a religion.

But.... I have to point out that atheists operate on the same lines as the religious... in the sense they are as organized as religious communities and constantly make public their beliefs point of views via websites, merchandise, literature, billboards etc.

A lack of faith just means your mind is free from religious thought. You don't believe and thats it. Like how I don't believe in the Lochness monster but I don't spend my time thinking about how the Lochness monster doesn't exist and how people who believe in it are so different, thereby spending all my energy on something which I don't believe in at all.

IMO,when one expresses a lack of faith as much as a religious group expressing their presence of faith kind of defeats the point of lacking faith.


edit on 30-3-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by 404ed
 


Faith in what, the observational exponential upward curve of scientific advancement and technological growth?



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


When someone has faith he is in essence trusting that the results are what he predicts. You must trust the results before they happen that is faith.

So a religious person will trust that God will give him eternal life after the rapture or the apocalypse if he be judged so.

Science is beginning to assert that the simple fact that we observe a phenomenon influences the outcome as demonstrated by the double slit experiment. So, we could go as far as saying that our intention has a meaning in the actual fabric of reality. Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you, makes a great deal of sense considering the latter.

That is about as intimate as faith will become with science. Faith is trusting that a certain outcome will be produced without knowing the actual results. We have faith before it becomes science.
edit on 30-3-2013 by bitsforbytes because: I am only human



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   
It's a bit floored though.

I don't see gravity. But i'm told it's there.
I can see/feel the effects of gravity. But only because i'm told what i am experiencing is gravity.

(i know, it's a bit of a leap but...)

Much like believers see the world and believe in intelligent design.
They can't see someone/something designing the world but they can see the outcome. (As they believe it was designed and have nothing solid to suggest that it wasn't in someway)

They have as much right to believe if the argument against them is merely "i see no evidence" Because to believers the evidence is all around us. It's just people's different interpretation of the evidence

Seeing is not always believing. And if you base your life on facts alone i think that adds up to a sad existence (in my opinion, of course)
edit on 30-3-2013 by MrConspiracy because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-3-2013 by MrConspiracy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Dear grainofsand,

I am a Christian, categorize you belief however you want, what do you care if some says it is a religion? What does it matter? Why are you so hung up on worrrying about whether or not your opinion is as dogmatic as the people you disagree with, or it that the real question? What they are accusing you of is being unwilling to consider other perspectives, it is true or it is not, what does it matter if they call it a religion?



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Hi Charles,

Your statements bring me more questions than answers.



Science, which studies the natural world, does not have the tools (nor will it have) to measure the supernatural world.


What is "the supernatural world." Does it exist? If so, how do you know. And, if you know, is it supernatural?



God's existence can not be proven in a scientific manner. An Atheist, someone who believes in no God, cannot prove his position either.


I beg to differ. An Atheist is someone who, when presented with a description or theory of a god, simply states, I don't believe that. They do not share your belief, and have no belief in such a being.

For example, I don't believe that the guy from the Old Testament is God. I'm not sure that this character, and others that have been called gods, existed or not, but if they did, they weren't gods. I don't believe the story presented to me about Jesus being born of a virgin, dying for sin and raising from the dead. Does that make me someone who has faith that these stories are untrue, or a person that simply doesn't believe the story to be true?


His position is the same as the believer's, studying a supernatural question with only natural tools. All we can do is consider the existing evidence and reach a conclusion based on it. Belief, not proof, is all there is.


What is a supernatural question?



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Noncompatible
 

Dear Noncompatible,

You've got some interesting points, mind if I respond?

It seems as though you, and the rest of Atheism, are saying, we don't believe in no God, we just don't have sufficient evidence to persuade us that there is a God. Have I got that right?

An atheist is someone who does not accept there is any tangible evidence for gods.
I'm not trying to nit-pick, but the word "tangible" is interesting. I hope you're not stacking the deck right from the start. What would you require for "tangible evidence?"

Is it enough for hundreds of people to come up to you shouting "I saw it! He said he was God and He did something completely impossible! I touched Him, I know He was real!" If that level of proof is not sufficient for you, what would you like? Almost all of the characters of history through Rome don't have any more proof than that.

If you need to be able to subject His material body to laboratory tests before you have sufficient evidence, then there is nothing to be done for you. Try to prove love, not it's effects, but the actual existence of love. I'd like to see how that works out. If it doesn't, will you also not believe in love?

I hope you have at least a little evidence for the proposition that God does not exist. If you believe there is no evidence either way. What is keeping you from accepting as evidence the belief of almost all of Humanity from the beginning of recorded history?

You see, I suppose I need just a little more information than I have in order to fully understand your position.

Oh, I have enough evidence for me to believe in the existence of God, but you may not consider it evidence. hence, my questions.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
 



In other words: The moment you power push market atheism, it has become a religion.


Bravo Sir!

Bravo!



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 11:54 PM
link   
It seems the Op bases their understanding on the scientific mothod. But the scientific method draws its conclusions based on using the laws of logic, that is reasoning based on observations. But where do we get the laws of logic?

The Christian worldview states that God is absolute and the standard of truth. Therefore, the absolute laws of logic exist because they reflect the nature of an absolute God. God did not create the laws of logic. They were not brought into existence, since they reflect God's thinking. Since God is eternal, the laws of logic are too.
Man, being made in God's image, is capable of discovering these laws of logic. He does not invent them.
Therefore, the Christian can account for the existence of the laws of logic by acknowledging they originate from God and that Man is only discovering them.

If the atheist states that the laws of logic are conventions (mutually agreed upon conclusions), then the laws of logic are not absolute because they are subject to a "vote." The laws of logic are not dependent upon different peoples' minds, since people are different. Therefore, they cannot be based on human thinking, since human thinking is often contradictory. If the atheist states that the laws of logic are derived through observing natural principles found in nature, then he is confusing the mind with the universe. We discover laws of physics by observing and analyzing the behavior of things around us. The laws of logic are not the result of observable behavior of object or actions.

Examples of the laws of logic:
Law of Identity: Something is what it is. Something that exists has a specific nature.
Law of Non-Contradiction: Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time, in the same way, and in the same sense.
Law of Excluded Middle: a statement is either true or false. Thus, the statement, "A statement is either true or false," is either true or false.

The Christian worldview maintains that the laws of logic are absolute because they come from God, who is Himself absolute. But the atheist worldview does not have an absolute God. So, we ask, "How can absolute, conceptual, abstract laws be derived from a universe of matter, energy, and motion?" In other words, "How can an atheist with a naturalistic presupposition account for the existence of logical absolutes when logical absolutes are conceptual by nature and not physical, energy, or motion?"

The Christian theistic worldview can account for the laws of logic by stating that they come from God.
God is transcendent; that is, He is beyond the material universe being its creator.
God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of His nature.
Therefore, the laws of logic are absolute.
They are absolute because there is an absolute God.
The atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic/absolutes, and must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to rationally argue.

TL;DR
The scientific method is based on the laws of logic. These laws are absolute which have always existed. Therefore, Atheists use laws based on the mind of God to understand the world around them.
edit on 31-3-2013 by Siberbat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:04 AM
link   
The reason why they wish to claim we have faith as well is because
faith is utterly useless, it cannot be useful to prove truth, as believing
something on faith proves nothing, it simply means your gullible, they
really need faith to be seen in a positive light because once that one
is gone they have to take direct responsibility for believing ridiculous,
often oppressive things and its not as easy if they cant say "well i have
faith he bible is right and god is behind my desire to oppress."

Responsibility is really the key here, religion is the biggest cop out
of responsibility on the planet, it give you forgiveness for things it cannot
possibly forgive, it gives authority it has no right to give, it dictates actions
it has no right to dictate and the only thing keeping it afloat is the faith of
its followers.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Siberbat
 


Ahhh the TAG argument for god, this is a fun one because it is the only
logical argument for a god like being, one major fatal flaw is that it does
not however fall on the shoulders of any one religion, it simply allows for
the possibility of the existence of a god like being, this does not confirm
any one religion over the other or even prove that god does exist, it simply
proves that it is possible which is something us non believers do admit
could be true. however jumping from it is possible logically to it is true
and Christians got it right is a logical fallacy.





new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join